[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions*From*: Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:34:37 +0800*Cc*: dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx, srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bKBaIAuCx5RxTKnodG//C1sZeiTyqtb2yusjwq87Mt8=; b=f+27hcYptUs8MJ8JILn1eAnXuJwU12Qkska33R7mFaaknE5bLCb+WzrnH+30b95rBE PbbaVCpY+jwCjiYBJniu41ooQQVXLG0OIyB6kcgtvKXac5QE/F6ivlYg8bpd3SdtFGPh Yu/s2KfOa7eUeBWNPNYXTp5kg1AvMhZMqY9cJShtOv3WLQVAhqsQkKOU3jpQg+GIitqb Z3CgCtxVQQMKk5zYQUVxsTImtDhI9X0pKvrQPvFtIb9MkUsbZttB0COPK6QZpqTg/fIs fgO3ZRbV3pm/yHHjTTiyP/r2llOji2HugMyEYR1vBb8XJ0LFZqGV8J+cnd6ncWSHQu/6 ge/g==*In-reply-to*: <20120827.065822.680075645630499491.shiro@xxxxxxxx>*References*: <CAF+kUQWBRMkf48gjQdp9GoEhiv9t209=f_t=iWtxCd5m_Zv5zw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120826.213139.1108322852317673718.shiro@xxxxxxxx> <CAF+kUQWF+jgTu_VVdDoeUA4yeu4GDx=YPKREkqPm8AoYbmzZ+g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120827.065822.680075645630499491.shiro@xxxxxxxx>

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:58:36 +0800 > >> The way the current spec is done allows for code like the >> following: >> >> (define {a // b} >> {(unwrap-par-monad a) parallel (unwrap-par-monad b)}) > > Kind of cute, though I wonder if this can be extended > to handle variable arity operators. David A. Wheeler and me kinda considered the following transformation: { x a . y } => (a x . y) The proposal was that the "list length" operation would consider improper lists to be of size 1, so {x a . y} would be considered an odd length, at least 3, etc. basically triggering the "simple" rule. > >> (define-syntax o >> (syntax-rules () >> ({a o b} >> (lambda (x) (b (a x)))) >> ({a o b o rest o ...} >> {{a o b} o rest o ...}))) >> >> Again, this takes advantage of the fact that >> {a o b o rest o ...} means (o a b rest ...) > > This is also cute, though it effectively changes the > surface meaning of "x ...". > > These two examples are interesting. They don't appeal to me > enough to convince me non-macro approach is good, but others > may feel differently. How about including them in the rationale > section to explain why reader transformation is necessary? > > --shiro Yes, I probably should. Sincerely, AmkG

**References**:**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Shiro Kawai

**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Shiro Kawai

- Prev by Date:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Next by Date:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Previous by thread:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Next by thread:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Index(es):